Surrogate dies in childbirth, leaves behind two of her own kids

[ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen]

"According to the post, Michelle and Chris decided to help another family who wasn't able to have children after they were done having kids of their own.

Michelle was on her second surrogacy for the same family when she lost her life.

Like any other pregnancy, surrogate pregnancies involve the same medical risks of carrying a child and giving birth."

This makes me really angry. Link below.

www.foxla.com/news/california-mother-of-two-dies-giving-another-family-the-gift-of-life?fbclid=IwAR2RgBrXZnWZa1DES4PQWDYMifkY7YCpLy6WVEOoHj6cD145L9Xof1Iy4mI

"There should be at a minimum some form of mandatory insurance, paid for by the buying parents, that pays out if a surrogate dies to secure her children's future and (at the very least FFS) pay her funeral costs. It's disgusting that her death is going to cause them financial hardship on top of everything else. Should not be legal full stop."

YY

I have seen intended parents (somewhere) comment/complain about the cost of the life insurance for the surrogate. In the US the contracts for commercial surrogacy have this but you can amend the contracts and you can just print them off from the internet.

Here's an example:

https://media.npr.org/documents/2015/july/Surrogacycontracttsample070215.pdf

A lot of people have said that she might have got pregnant with her husband and then died in childbirth.

I’ve done a speedy google and using donor eggs is now believed to increase the chances of pregnancy complications.

A further google shows that IVF treatment increases the chances of pregnancy complications.

What that means is that if the baby had been conceived in the usual, old fashioned bouncy cuddle way because it’s mummy and daddy loved each other and wanted a baby (or just wanted a bonk and the baby came as a surprise afterwards) then she may still be alive.

I should probably add that I used to think surrogacy was a wonderful thing. An amazing gift.

And then I had my own children.

And discovered that as newborns they knew my heartbeat. They recognised my voice. They knew me.

I struggle to understand the rationale of creating a person, someone that you vow to love and care for for the rest of your life and then the very very first thing you do when they come into the world is damage them.

It's unethical to create a child for whom the plan is removal from her birth mother. Children are not objects of trade, commerce or even gifts.

It should be banned, both commerical and altruistic.

@thecatfromjapan Totally agree. True choice is a choice you really want to make and it's positive rather than one you feel forced to do.

A further google shows that IVF treatment increases the chances of pregnancy complications.

This has pretty much been debunked - there is data to suggest that IVF pregnancies are associated with a minuscule increase in complications, but further research has shown this to be likely due to the fact that women going through IVF are 1: usually older than the average pregnant woman and 2: more likely to be suffering from pre-existing gynaecological disorders (that necessitated the IVF in the first place).

I can't imagine why any woman would agree to do this, especially in the UK where payment is fixed st £750

I know the thread has moved on, but wanted to comment on this. I very nearly agreed to it - because the ivf clinic I wanted to use offered a huge discount on treatment if you were prepared to donate eggs. Not a cash payment so it didn't break the rules, but it was still a financial incentive of far more than £750.

In the end, my relationship broke down so it came to nothing, but at the time, I was desperate to get pregnant and couldn't really afford ivf. The clinic were perfectly happy to exploit my desperation. I'm sure plenty of people would argue that it would have been my "choice" to donate eggs but, in that emotionally and financially vulnerable state it certainly wasn't something I'd recognise as even close to a free choice.

Fascinating thread. I too have come to the conclusion that surrogacy should be banned, with the possible exception of altruistic surrogacy, very tightly controlled indeed.

This picture makes me feel queasy. It shows a couple wheeling away a newborn girl minutes after her birth. She should have been with her mother, but she'll probably never meet her again. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

(To save the tedious arguments that may ensue, it's not because the couple are two gay men. I'd feel the same if it showed Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, who I believe have had two children now via a surrogacy arrangement.)

That picture

Didn't the kardashians already have 2 children and they used a surrogate to have more?!

It disgusts me. Supporters of surrogacy argue that it's to help infertile, childless people who are desperate to become parents. It shouldn't be for people who already have their own children FFS.

I think the surrogate for Kim Kardashian-West is the same one for both of her children (from surrogacy, is she still pregnant? I've lost track.)

It's news gossip but I did read about various perks of the deal including Botox, cosmetic surgery and holidays. Their contract must be water-tight. Can't imagine the mother changing her mind and getting to keep the baby, how would she even begin to tackle their lawyers?

I struggle to understand the rationale of creating a person, someone that you vow to love and care for for the rest of your life and then the very very first thing you do when they come into the world is damage them.

This is the crux of it for me. There is so little thought given to whether this is a good way for a child's life to begin (it's not - lots of evidence to support this out there). It's all about the adult's wants always. It's just a bad thing to do to a child -and it really doesn't bode well for that parent-child relationship down the line.

Of course surrogacy advocates will argue that some children have bad parents anyway - true - but the thing is, this is deliberate. It's different. If someone accidentally destroys my wall by their car crashing into it that is entirely different to if someone deliberately does it. Intent matters.

@SpiderHunter I'm sorry for the sad difficulties you went through. i hope you have been able to come to terms and found peace.

I'm really interested in the processes relating to "egg sharing" arrangements (where fertility clinics offer a big discount for women who donate their excess eggs) and am naturally very sceptical about the whole issue of "choice" when clinics are exploiting desperation.

I have been doing a bit of lurking on the fertility board on Mumsnet to try to update my knowledge. I have got the impression that these days hormone doses are more carefully titrated for each individual woman, and that there is no longer a policy of "get as many eggs as possible" but rather an understanding that only a few eggs are needed, or as one woman said, quoting her Dr "you only need one good egg". My understanding is lower doses of hormones means less eggs (but you really don't need lots) and reduces the risk of complications such as ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome.
As it happens, although the area of the nhs I work in has nothing to do with gynaecology I had dealings with two young women who had ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome in recent months. One of them ended up in ICU and nearly died. (Both were having egg retrieval for their own purposes and one told me the clinic kept doses to the minimum but she still developed complications). The risks associated with egg retrieval should not be understated.

So I have been wondering if women who agree to egg sharing are dosed up to produce lots more eggs, contrary to current best practice, and putting themselves at risk along the way?
I also see women on the fertility board discussing the quality of their eggs. Can IVF clinics be trusted to use the best quality eggs for the patient and the lesser eggs for donation purposes?
Then there is the heartbreaking dilemma women will face should their own attempts of IVF fail leaving them wondering if another woman got lucky and has had a baby which is their own genetic child.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/venus-rising/id1481872967?i=1000458521512

I posted the link to that podcast upthread but posting it again as it is relevant here.

They discuss the process of egg collection, where 40 or more eggs are "harvested" pointing out that for each egg another transvaginal needle stab is needed. 40+ needle stabs! They also mention a woman who "donated" (egg donors in the USA tend to be young women, typically college students, who have been targeted and bribed by the promised fee of $10k +) eggs when she was young. Later on she had fertility problems of her own (possibly related) and required IVF. She noted a significant difference in the way she was treated as a paying patient as oppose to her earlier experience as a battery hen with eggs to be harvested.

If you are able to share any information relating to discussions and explanations you received from the clinic regarding hormone doses, expected egg "harvest" from your personal experience I would really appreciate your insight SpiderHunter
Apologies if this is too upsetting and raw, I don't mean to be insensitive.

More information about egg sharing. "Your IVF will only cost £1000"

www.carefertility.com/costs/egg-sharing/

Yes barracker. Surrogacy farms.

That’s it. In India and anywhere women can be commodities

Oh India has banned it now.

www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/ukraine-baby-factories-human-cost-surrogacy-180912201251153.html

IVF fee schedules for the uninitiated. Eye watering. And inevitably include hidden extras.
("Patients are charged separately for drugs supplied by CARE")

https://www.carefertility.com/care-fertility-fee-schedules/?clinic=london

And if anyone can enlighten me what shared motherhood/intra-partner egg donation involves I'd be delighted to know.

"Shared motherhood
IVF with intra-partner egg donation
4900
Frozen embryo replacement (FER) with intra-partner embryo donation"

So basic IVF is quoted as £3650 (plus drug costs) and with egg sharing £1000 (+/- drug costs, that detail isn't clear). A very significant reduction far in excess of the capped fee of £750

Added your link to the resource thread @littlbrowndog Thanks for posting.

Surrogacy Resource thread : please post your links here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3782983-surrogacy-resource-thread-please-post-your-links-here

Altruistic surrogacy is the same bullshit minimization that brought us the false concept of the happy hooker.
Total bollocks designed to make it more palatable. Neither exist.

Not true. My friend offered to be a surrogate for me. It wasn't something I was thinking about, she just thought of it and offered it. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in my country do she would have done it for nothing, just out of love for me. Altruistic surrogacy does exist. I didn't take her up on it because I'd rather try ivf but I really appreciated that she loved me enough to offer it to me.

Commercial surrogacy should be banned. It amounts to people (mostly hetero couples btw) buying a baby. WTF. How is this even up for discussion.

I get that women should have agency over their lives and body. Of course they should. But selling and buying a baby is a different question entirely.

Thanks fannycann, I'm worked through my issues and I'm perfectly happy now. I didn't get as far as discussing hormone doses, so can't offer any insight on that. It was quite a while ago, so can't remember exactly, but I think there was something about it being slightly more complicated than regular ivf because they need to sync the cycles of the person receiving eggs with the person donating them.

At the time I didn't care that the discount was so much higher than the £750 limit. But looking back I can see that I was vulnerable and my financial situation was being exploited. I don't have children, and I've completely come to terms with it. But if I'd gone through with the egg donation and my own ivf failed I think knowing that someone else had my genetic child would be really tough.

It is a difficult one to square really. I can see the argument that the clinic / receiving couple would cover all the medical costs up to and including harvest if you were just donating eggs, so they should be able to if you are donating during your own ivf treatment. But the £750 limit exists to stop exploitation and offering nearly £3000 discount flies in the face of that.

IMO there should be absolutely no financial incentive to donate eggs, semen or any other human cells / tissues / organs. And commercial surrogacy should be seen for what it really is (buying / selling babies) and completely banned.

fanny intra-partner egg donation/shared motherhood is where a lesbian couple use the egg from one partner to create the embryo which is then carried by the other partner, so one woman is the birth mother and one is the genetic mother. Sometimes a couple will do this because one partner is unable/unwilling to carry the baby or sometimes they will each carry a baby if they would like siblings (often using the same sperm donor)